Should the US Ban Chinese EVs? (arstechnica.com) 283
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Influential US Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) has called on U.S. President Joe Biden to ban electric vehicles from Chinese brands. Brown calls Chinese EVs "an existential threat" to the U.S. automotive industry and says that allowing imports of cheap EVs from Chinese brands "is inconsistent with a pro-worker industrial policy." Brown's letter to the president (PDF) is the most recent to sound alarms about the threat of heavily subsidized Chinese EVs moving into established markets. Brands like BYD and MG have been on sale in the European Union for some years now, and last October, the EU launched an anti-subsidy investigation into whether the Chinese government is giving Chinese brands an unfair advantage.
The EU probe won't wrap until November, but another report published this week found that government subsidies for green technology companies are prevalent in China. BYD, which now sells more EVs than Tesla, has benefited from almost $4 billion (3.7 billion euro) in direct help from the Chinese government in 2022, according to a study by the Kiel Institute. Last month, the EU even started paying extra attention to imports of Chinese EVs, issuing a threat of retroactive tariffs that could start being imposed this summer. Chinese EV imports to the EU have increased by 14 percent since the start of its investigation, but they have yet to really begin in the U.S., where there are a few barriers in their way. Chinese batteries make an EV ineligible for the IRS's clean vehicle tax credit, for one thing. And Chinese-made vehicles (like the Lincoln Nautilus, Buick Envision, and Polestar 2) are already subject to a 27.5 percent import tax.
But Chinese EVs are on sale in Mexico already, and that has American automakers worried. Last year, Ford CEO Jim Farley said he saw Chinese automakers "as the main competitors, not GM or Toyota." And in January, Tesla CEO Elon Musk said he believed that "if there are no trade barriers established, they will pretty much demolish most other car companies in the world." [...] It's not just the potential damage to the U.S. auto industry that has prompted this letter. Brown wrote that he is concerned about the risk of China having access to data collected by connected cars, "whether it be information about traffic patterns, critical infrastructure, or the lives of Americans," pointing out that "China does not allow American-made electric vehicles near their official buildings." At the end of February, the Commerce Department also warned of the security risk from Chinese-connected cars and revealed it has launched an investigation into the matter. "When the goal is to dominate a sector, tariffs are insufficient to stop their attack on American manufacturing," Brown wrote. "Instead, the Administration should act now to ban Chinese EVs before they destroy the potential for the U.S. EV market. For this reason, no solution should be left off the table, including the use of Section 421 (China Safeguard) of the Trade Act of 1974, or some other authority."
The EU probe won't wrap until November, but another report published this week found that government subsidies for green technology companies are prevalent in China. BYD, which now sells more EVs than Tesla, has benefited from almost $4 billion (3.7 billion euro) in direct help from the Chinese government in 2022, according to a study by the Kiel Institute. Last month, the EU even started paying extra attention to imports of Chinese EVs, issuing a threat of retroactive tariffs that could start being imposed this summer. Chinese EV imports to the EU have increased by 14 percent since the start of its investigation, but they have yet to really begin in the U.S., where there are a few barriers in their way. Chinese batteries make an EV ineligible for the IRS's clean vehicle tax credit, for one thing. And Chinese-made vehicles (like the Lincoln Nautilus, Buick Envision, and Polestar 2) are already subject to a 27.5 percent import tax.
But Chinese EVs are on sale in Mexico already, and that has American automakers worried. Last year, Ford CEO Jim Farley said he saw Chinese automakers "as the main competitors, not GM or Toyota." And in January, Tesla CEO Elon Musk said he believed that "if there are no trade barriers established, they will pretty much demolish most other car companies in the world." [...] It's not just the potential damage to the U.S. auto industry that has prompted this letter. Brown wrote that he is concerned about the risk of China having access to data collected by connected cars, "whether it be information about traffic patterns, critical infrastructure, or the lives of Americans," pointing out that "China does not allow American-made electric vehicles near their official buildings." At the end of February, the Commerce Department also warned of the security risk from Chinese-connected cars and revealed it has launched an investigation into the matter. "When the goal is to dominate a sector, tariffs are insufficient to stop their attack on American manufacturing," Brown wrote. "Instead, the Administration should act now to ban Chinese EVs before they destroy the potential for the U.S. EV market. For this reason, no solution should be left off the table, including the use of Section 421 (China Safeguard) of the Trade Act of 1974, or some other authority."
Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Should we let them steal all our intellectual property, then sabotage most of our brands in their media, then destroy all our domestic car makers? What kind of shill would sit by and take yet another poker in the rear?
Re:Of course (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would they do that? They already have phones out there. Incidentally, the US domestic car makers are destroying themselves. The Chinese are just seizing the opportunity as good capitalists do.
Re:Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
This works because in the US, fake "patriotism" makes people switch off their brains and cheer mindlessly. Of course, doing things like that does a lot of long-term damage. It is no accident that the effective standard of living in the US is among the lowest in the developed world. Things like not being able to afford medical care (or medical bankruptcy) or education (or massive student loan debt) are essentially unheard of in most of the developed world, not so in the US. This is no accident and is (among other things) a result of the "patriotism" button being far too easy to press for politicians. Hence they use it whenever possible.
Democracy only works when people are very suspicious of their "leaders" and pay close attention to what they do and kick them in the nuts whenever they do not deliver on their promises. No, voting "Trump" is exactly the opposite. It is falling for the guy that lies even more.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, by treating their workers to subsistence wages, and their environment to utter despoliation. The WTO (or whoever) needs to establish global standards for minimum wages and environmental practices before its members agree to open their markets to products from another nation. American workers might not like competing with minimum wage foreign workers, but at least they wouldn't be competing with essentially zero wage workers. Something like that was done with regard to Mexi
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
To fix global warming, we need affordable EVs.
American manufacturers don't make those. China does.
So what's more important, fixing the climate or protecting manufacturers from competition?
Re: (Score:2)
American manufacturers don't even make affordable ICE cars.
Re: Of course (Score:2)
New cars are for rich people and dumbasses. Always have been.
Re:Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
So now you want a regulated market.
Trump’s 10% tax (Score:2)
state security (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:state security (Score:5, Insightful)
Then ban EVs that have routable communications systems; let them have TPS and wired DRB-II and Bluetooth. Mandate that software updates be certified by an American company prior to deployment, and that they require a trip to a dealership for the update.
I mean... those would be selling features to me, but they also alleviate concerns about a foreign nation having control of your transportation infrastructure.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope.
Full tear downs of the vehicles would be required, on a regular basis, to ensure that bad things aren't being inserted. That includes any and all chips that are in the vehicle.
It's just a massive vulnerability hole. Makes me think of that Dr. Who episode where the bad guy had control of the cars.
Re: state security (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would think you'd have something like a DRB-II tool that would be loaded with official approved hashes for various makes and models, and your average mechanic would have no trouble at all connecting the reader and reading the output that confirms a match to trusted firmware.
The inspection of the firmware itself... yes, open source is not a bad idea. There shouldn't be anything proprietary in there anyway, and what is can be legally protected in a nation like the US. Let the world review the code and loo
Re: state security (Score:2)
There's nothing stopping the vehicle itself from presenting one set of code while executing another. WV did this in Europe for decades, but in their defense this was legal there and the regulators already knew about it before they tried it in the states and got caught.
You could perhaps mandate some form of hardware attestation a la TPMs, but for that to be of any value, you need a guarantee that the very first stage of the cold boot process can be trusted.
Re: (Score:2)
I would think you'd have something like a DRB-II tool
Everybody is moving on to laptops now, no more dedicated scan tools. It's just a lot less crap to have built.
no, we need more oil-burners (Score:5, Insightful)
Y'know, last time the American car makers got wiped out because they insisted on trying to sell big, badly-made cars to people who wanted more efficient cars that didn't fall apart all the time.
These guys have had plenty of time to get a grasp on the EV market, and now they're whining that they can't compete without government intervention. Again. Well, let 'em fail if they're such losers. If the government bails them out, we're not doing any better than China.
We should be rooting for EVs any way we can get them. It might help save the planet! But no, you want to squabble about WHO gets to save the planet? What are you, Republicans?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: no, we need more oil-burners (Score:2)
If consumer reports can be considered an authority on the subject, the UAW exclusively makes worst cars you can buy in the US. Compare their reliability ratings with the models that the UAW themselves claim to make, and you'll see what I mean. In that same brochure, they claim to make quality cars, so you also know they believe in false advertising too.
Re: (Score:2)
Y'know, last time the American car makers got wiped out because they insisted on trying to sell big, badly-made cars to people who wanted more efficient cars that didn't fall apart all the time.
These guys have had plenty of time to get a grasp on the EV market, and now they're whining that they can't compete without government intervention.
People want trucks and SUVs. This time around government is forcing the manufacturers to build things people don't want. Not surprising that is not going to be as profitable for all but a few makers.
US auto industry cedes the market again (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds like much a repeat of the situation in the auto industry in the 70s. US automakers fixated on one class of vehicle to the exclusion of everything else, then the market shifts away from that and they're caught with their pants down. Asian manufacturers step in products ready to fill the gaps.
I would be OK with an import ban if the US manufacturers offered comparable vehicles at comparable prices.
Re: (Score:2)
And they did it to themselves, too. US automakers didn't need to shape US consumer preferences in favour of vehicles that are on average much bigger than the rest of the world (especially trucks, which basically exist nowhere else). They could have pursued a global strategy and sought to focus 90% of their efforts on vehicles that would be popular across many markets. But instead, they turned the US market into a huge profitable niche where consumers behaved completely differently from Europe or Asia, and n
Re: (Score:2)
Both of the following are true simultaneously, if you listen to the protectionists:
1. American carmakers do not make small efficient cars, particularly EV's, because Americans do not want to buy them
2. We cannot allow anyone to import small efficient cars because Americans will buy them instead of American cars
Re: (Score:2)
Ha! Yup
Re: (Score:2)
Re:US auto industry cedes the market again (Score:5, Interesting)
US automakers didn't need to shape US consumer preferences in favour of vehicles that are on average much bigger than the rest of the world (especially trucks, which basically exist nowhere else).
U.S. automakers favored larger vehicles because the U.S. Government required mileage and emissions targets for smaller cars to be met or the automakers would face significant fines. Certain trucks were exempt from the fines, and it was straightforward for automakers to meet the definition of what constitutes such a truck by making smaller cars bigger. No one likes paying fines, so the SUV was born.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
SUV-style vehicles were around before emissions regulations. Jeep Wagoneer and Dodge Power Wagon going back to the 1950s, and probably some others I'm forgetting. The question is what changed to prompt people to start buying them in numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
SUV-style vehicles were around before emissions regulations. Jeep Wagoneer and Dodge Power Wagon going back to the 1950s, and probably some others I'm forgetting. The question is what changed to prompt people to start buying them in numbers.
They made them comfortable and luxurious. A taller version of the big cars North Americans have always liked.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I know the history of it. It's bitten them on the ass now
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know enough of the history to know whether the laws were worded that way through malice or incompetence (or both). It seems entirely plausible that lobbyists got the laws worded like this to create the loophole for auto manufacturers, given that's a dance we've seen before in the US many times.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I would be OK with an import ban if the US manufacturers offered comparable vehicles at comparable prices."
For US manufacturers to match Chinese prices we would need to repeal the 13th Amendment, then abolish OSHA and the EPA. The minimum wage also needs to be canceled, as does the rest of the Fair Labor Standards Act. It would also help to repeal the Endangered Species Act so we can get domestic mining going again and reduce the cost of the materials needed to build the cars.
All those rules and regulation
Re:US auto industry cedes the market again (Score:5, Interesting)
The reason why PV panels went from negligible to 95% is because China invested into it more so than anyone else, seeing it as the future, while other countries namely the US stuck their thumb in their ass, trying to invest in nat. gas infrastructure and frack drilling, probably mainly due to lobbying than anything else, while stating climate change is fake news.
And if the US keeps going this way, China is pretty much going to be the premier market and supplier of EVs in the world, because no one in the US is going to want to buy overpriced EVs, that cost more than a gas guzzler. China sees EVs as the future, and is willing to destroy whatever ICE auto factories there are in China and make it cheap enough for the common Chinese citizen. They did the same thing with PVs, seeing it as the future, and don't want to necessarily be dependent on nat. gas, especially since it has to be imported, and mass producing it enough to become a viable source of energy in China, where the large majority of PV installations annually in the world is in China. They did the same with steel and cement, where 90% of the steel and cement that was being produced was being used in China to build up infrastructure. No one else in the world could supply what China needed so it build up those industries.
Re: (Score:2)
I would even pay higher prices for a US product. Say double the cost of what they're charging domestically for Chinese EVs. The problem is there is no US product, at any cost, and that is by choice not by law.
If there aren't any EVs available below $30k within the next few years, I might skip "the industry" entirely and get an electrified classic from a small shop. I gather it'd be roughly the same price and it would match my needs even better than the Chinese cars.
Re: (Score:2)
If I had enough money for a new EV right now I'd find some 240Z that could be restored without too much trouble (as in most of the sheet metal is still there) and have the unibody treated so it has a chance to last a while, and do a custom EV conversion. That was a sweet little car, and it weighed approximately nothing. With a dogbone battery filling the driveline tunnel and the bottom of the engine bay, you could make a really sweet little ride with good range.
Instead, I drive a disposable Versa. The milea
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For US manufacturers to match Chinese prices we would need to repeal the 13th Amendment, then abolish OSHA and the EPA. The minimum wage also needs to be canceled, as does the rest of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
No you wouldn't. There's a reason why Chinese cars in the USA sell for significantly higher price than other countries. The differences in cost savings due to regulations are a matter for import tariffs to level the playing field, and Chinese cars already have close to 30% tariffs applied to them.
Now we could happily argue if 30% is enough, but claiming that you need to abolish local regulations is just ignorant of how international trade works.
Re: US auto industry cedes the market again (Score:2)
I'd say it's Japan that missed the boat this cycle. China, Germany, and U.S. are the countries producing the EVs.
Re: (Score:2)
Protecionism makes things worse (Score:2)
It does look good to those with no knowledge of economics though.
Re: Protecionism makes things worse (Score:2)
Strange (Score:2)
Re: Strange (Score:2)
Not really. The U.S. is concerned about critical pieces of the value added supply chain. These are the elements that keep the global markets moving (like chips) or produce up skilled labor domestically (like EVs) or where there is a pressing national security concern (like networking equipment). Other than that, we are cool with Chinese made textiles, clothing, electronics, consumer goods, etc.
Should ask domestic automakers first. (Score:2)
Free Trade for me, not for thee (Score:2)
Safety and regulatory standards (Score:3)
So far the EV autos designed in the PRC have not attempted to meet US/Canada safety and regulatory certification standards. BYD has an engineering and manufacturing center in the US for their EV municipal vehicles so they could certify a car if they thought they had a market for it, but so far that doesn't seem to be the case. Perhaps the US EV makers could concentrate on making their products more price competitive and improving sales and service so they don't have to resort to a trade war to win the market?
Re:Safety and regulatory standards (Score:5, Informative)
So far the EV autos designed in the PRC have not attempted to meet US/Canada safety and regulatory certification standards.
BYD already have many consumer vehicles that meet safety standards in Europe and Australia which are far more stringent than the very backwards (by western standards) US safety regulations.
BYD has an engineering and manufacturing center in the US for their EV municipal vehicles so they could certify a car if they thought they had a market for it
Your issue is you are clueless as to their current state. BYD *has* certified a consumer car and is selling one. The BYD Han. Recently BYD was asked why they are only releasing one EV model in America instead of the 6 in Europe (the Han is also sold in Europe) and their answer was that USA regulations for EVs are constantly changing shitshow and it's hard to plan a long term market investment when you can't even figure out if what a politician says today won't change tomorrow.
There's nothing unsafe about BYD, and they sure as heck don't have a problem with capability, which is why the BYD engineering and manufacturing centre in the USA focuses on commercial vehicles, where they aren't competing with political lobbyists.
Not seeing it here in Europe (Score:3)
MG/BYD isn't really at some different level to European manufacturing here in Europe AFAICS.
Also it's the European manufacturers which are breaking open the quintessential European small car market. Dacia Spring Extreme was the first somewhat practical one even if underspecced, now there's Citroen e-C3, soon Fiat Panda-EV and at some point VW will join late to the party. Chinese are nowhere to be seen.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to rain on your parade, but Dacia Spring is fully built in China.
Other Dacia models are built in Romania, Tunis (I think) and a few other places (even in Russia not so long ago, if I remember correctly).
But Dacia Spring was built completely in China at the launch, and I do not think this has changed.
Re: (Score:2)
MG and BYD are offering the same quality as European and Japanese manufacturers, but at a fraction of the price. The Koreans used to be similar but their cars are getting expensive now.
In the EV realm the Chinese have the best batteries and some pretty competitive drivetrains. They also have some unique features, like Nio with their battery swapping.
We need cheap EVs! (Score:2)
US and EU automakers still seem to be treating EVs as tech toys for wealthy people, and I donâ(TM)t want over $60,000 for an electric SUV or pickup truck! If we really want widespread EV adoption by 2035, we need to fill the car market with affordable models that still have decent range. Ford and GM arenâ(TM)t going to do it willingly until they start losing marketshare from the likes of BYD.
We should ban EVs with NCM batteries (Score:2)
Or perhaps we could come up with some kind of flammability/runaway standard that would disqualify them without naming them, so that it didn't have to be adjusted for each new chemistry.
NCM batteries' electrolyte releases oxygen when heated, which is why they are so dangerous. Well, that and the cobalt, which doesn't increase fire risk AFAIK, but you really don't want to be breathing it.
But ban Chinese-produced EVs? No. What we should do is place a slave labor tariff on all goods produced by workers making l
Of couorse we should (Score:2)
EVs are little more than cell phones on wheels. The CCP will use that tracking to their advantage and disrupt any country that purchases them. Even if EVs can be unpaired from their manufacturer (this means all companies, not just Chinese) you still can't trust them. Hell, this goes for new ICE vehicles as well. The raping of personal data has consequences, especially when it involves shit-heads like the CCP.
Protectionism (Score:2)
You can't just come right out and ask for protectionism. You gotta come up with an excuse. For example, clove cigarettes were banned not because they were imports eating into domestic brands, but because flavored cigarettes are marketed to children.
Bad idea that could lead to.. (Score:3)
...enormous economic difficulty
We abandoned manufacturing and outsourced most of it to China
If we escalate the trade war, they will respond, eventually stopping ALL exports
It will be a major disruption as we scramble to find other sources
This is especially true in tech. Chinese people are smart. What happens if they become the tech leader, and refuse to sell us the latest and best stuff?
We did this to ourselves in search of higher profits
Anyone here have the real sales numbers? (Score:2)
In the past when looking into BYD sales numbers I always have had difficulty separating out the BEV sales numbers from their Plugin-Hybrids, Hybrids, and for that matter all the other vehicle that uses batteries for propulsion energy. BYD makes a lot of different models of vehicles. Maybe they have golf carts and e-bikes in their numbers. I have given up looking, so I'm hoping someone else has done the work.
With Tesla it is easy. They don't sell anything but BEVs so there is no post-processing work t
Communism is evil, capitalism is good (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that China has completely embraced capitalism and market economy and become so good at it that it's burying US corporations, China is once again evil.
It ain't all about cheap labor. Labor costs in China now are far higher than places where US corporations have a strong manufacturing presence such as India and Vietnam. The #1 driver of Chinese manufacturing domination is that they've become very, very efficient. It's the same story we've seen before, with the likes of Toyota in Japan when they were far behind USA in the 1950's, but kept learning and improving until they surpassed the stagnant US companies.
In the last 20 years USA has spent 12 trillion dollars dropping bombs on villages in the Middle East that benefited no one except the military-industrial complex and some senators in the payroll of Blackrock. Meanwhile in the same 20 years China has spent exactly zero dollars waging foreign wars. Instead they spent trillions on improving their infrastructure (see all those new roads and bridges?) and automating their factories with robots. In fact the amount of industrial robots China bought in the past 4 years since COVID is astounding.... it's higher than all of USA Cananda and EU combined. *THIS* is the biggest driver of how China manufacturing has become so efficient.
Agree 100 Percent (Score:2)
Subsidized...and then some (Score:2)
The thing you have to realize us that Chinese industry and the Chinese government are intertwined. This isn't a matter of a foreign company making a better product for less. This is a governmental effort to break into a new industry - with subsidies, and political support.
Look at chips, and the effort to regain manufacturing capabilities in the US. Primarily by funding foreign companies, because US industry us no longer competitive. That's what China wants to achieve with EVs.
American car mfgs aren't going to catch up (Score:2)
If we don't make them, somehow. Freezing the Chinese out of the equation lessens pressure on them to change. Not that the Chinese don't *deserve* to be blocked out - they do - due to their numerous human rights, IP, and other legal violations.
However, the American car manufacturers will sit on their fat lazy asses and make profits, not better, cheaper cars if the Chinese cars are tariffed. Unless part of that bill is a tasking and penalty schedule for American manufacturers to match Chinese progress and pri
Dr. Who Villain Doomsday Scenario (Score:2)
What would happen if fall the Chinese EV's currently in the country at that point spontaneously burst into flames through their car receiving a signal that actuated an unused microchip path in some obscure code to turn on test mode and overclock the battery or something? Or 1 in 100 cars?
What level of testing do you have to do to ensure that what you are importing that is of National Strategic Importance, sheerly due to the ubiquity and closeness to nearly every American citizen, is safe? Especially when i
Two thoughts. (Score:2)
First thought: This is coming from a US Senator. You are the one who makes the laws, dude. Write one up. Get it passed. Make it a law. Don't badger the President to use questionable executive power to do your bidding. DO YOUR JOB. MAKE A LAW.
Second thought: No. Don't ban Chinese EVs. It is the wrong way to handle this. If there is an unfair subsidy, apply tariffs to equalize the situation. Banning foreign competition removes market pressure to improve domestic products.
Only if they partner with US companies (Score:2)
No, but we should impose same level tarrifs. (Score:2)
The USA should know (Score:2)
no, but yes (Score:2)
Because China and the USA are both members of the WTO. Thanks, Bill Clinton.
Re:No, They shouldn't ban Chinese EVs. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No, They shouldn't ban Chinese EVs. (Score:5, Insightful)
The USA should quantify those subsidies, itemize and charge them as tariffs, and periodically re-calculate them. Then if (when) China wants those tariffs lowered, they will know exactly what they need to do. Until then, the tariffs will help keep the USA's automobile manufacturing healthy, unlike their domestic chip production that they neglected for many years.
Re: No, They shouldn't ban Chinese EVs. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fucking over 330 million Americans again. I'll go to Canada, buy the EV I want at the price it costs, and drive it down, then register it here. Thanks. Take your protectionism and stick it up your ass.
Tell us you are pro-slavery with a dog whistle.
Re:No, They shouldn't ban Chinese EVs. (Score:5, Insightful)
Except unlike with Japan in the 80s, China use slave labor, it’s paid workers have little safety protection, and they have no real environmental laws.
Now talk to me about the US agriculture industry. None of your domestically grown food was picked by a person in the country legally.
Re: No, They shouldn't ban Chinese EVs. (Score:2)
Let me guess, you picture the life of a farmer being one where the fields are full of laborers picking by hand while the farmer sits under the veranda drinking lemonade while supervising?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: No, They shouldn't ban Chinese EVs. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are about 2 million crop workers who pick fruit and vegetables on American farms. It's not all done by massive machines!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: No, They shouldn't ban Chinese EVs. (Score:2)
Re: No, They shouldn't ban Chinese EVs. (Score:2)
And how do you come to those weird ideas?
Every night factory owners are raiding remote villages and capture slaves?
No, we're talking about America here. Only Germans have ever captured slaves for factory work. That's how you built your wermacht, remember?
Re: No, They shouldn't ban Chinese EVs. (Score:2)
China has environmental protection laws, and they are enforced. Same with worker protections, the CCP avoids mass protests of the kind seen with COVID lockdowns by looking after the majority of citizens.
Yeah, they did the only humane thing by locking them inside of their houses and welding the door shut. Such wonderful people those CCP guys are.
Re:No, They shouldn't ban Chinese EVs. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed
Re: (Score:2)
I am just playing devil's advocate here, because I broadly agree with you. So I don't buy into what I'm about to write...
Presumably the argument is that EVs are meaningfully different from the wider market of consumer stuff in a few key ways:
1. The market for US EVs is not yet lost (cf, say, smartphones)
2. Automotive is more strategically significant than other sectors (cf, say, smartphones) -- more of GDP, supports more jobs, transport matters more, etc
3. Chinese state support for EVs is more extensive tha
Re: (Score:2)
Because Fentanyl is not well suited for finger-pointing to an enemy abroad.
Re: All or nothing (Score:2)
Isn't it? It's largely manufactured in China and smuggled through Mexico.
Re: All or nothing (Score:2)
Drug addiction is considered a disease, so it doesn't count.
Re: (Score:2)
My issue isn't Chinese crap selling here for cheap. It's fentanyl.
what has you current nth public health issue to do with the car industry or protectionism?
oh, that fentanyl is produced in china too? well, your problem is not production, it's demand. as with all drug related problems it's about the people, not the substance. as it happens, the u.s. has lots of desperate and/or uneducated people and a shitty health care which is why you go from one health crisis to the next. it doesn't really matter where the drug comes from, if people wants it it will come from anywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: So instead of buying a $8000 Chinese EV (Score:2)
I mean that's essentially the globalist/anti-globalist argument. Do you want a global market with the cheapest goods and labor or do you want a local market with expensive goods and labor, with the benefit of expensive labor falling to the working class.
Re:So instead of buying a $8000 Chinese EV (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's all so tiresome.
Stupid decisions made by stupid people usually are. And they never learn.
Re:Hello No! Let them in! (Score:4, Insightful)
The true loser of such protection would be be the American consumer!
During WW2, automakers not only produced consumer vehicles, though at a much smaller rate than pre-war, they also started producing tanks and other products for the war effort. Without the automakers, the U.S. would have been at a severe handicap to fight the war. The auto industry is critical infrastructure that we cannot afford to lose.
Re: Hello No! Let them in! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Chinese auto maker BYD is making some excellent EVs at very good prices. They should be able to sell them in this country without onerous tariffs!
I agree. Onerous means "involving an amount of effort and difficulty that is oppressively burdensome." But you know what's really oppressive? Slave labor.
Our automakers cannot compete with Chinese-produced vehicles because they are expected to pay their employees a living wage. Not placing tariffs on imports on that basis is promoting slavery, at least effective slavery if not literally (and probably some of both.)
Re: Cave to the greenies in 3, 2, 1... (Score:2)
Re: Cave to the greenies in 3, 2, 1... (Score:2)
Your solution requires our competitors to willingly raise their operating costs in order to be less competitive with us.
This is unrealistic.
The only way it could be realistic is if you imagine that they care about being green as much as our greenies do. This is a false assumption. Green is a luxury belief. In China, Vietnam, or any other place where they make our stuff for us because we won't do it ourselves, they don't give two fucks about being green. The fact that they make money not giving a fuck is jus
Re: (Score:2)
They could just have blown up all the EV's. Much more economical and just as devastating.